Thread: Buy American Our government at work

Tweet

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

I've seen that before and just seeing that its right by the water makes me wonder if the other buildings there aren't at risk also--

It seems your thoughts are shared by the local folks in that the majority of these particular buildings are now vacant. After this happened there was a firestorm of complaints by people who had purchased their apartments in the adjacent building and they demanded their money back. The litigation became ugly but seeing there was so much publicity surrounding this event the owners were either told to or decided to settle. Cheers, John, AKA, tin-man

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

Here's a link to an interesting read on cars assembled in this country.... It points out that buying "American made" isn't near as cut and dried as it used to be!!!!

Made in America? Hard to tell - The Boston Globe

Hi all!! The big question would be if the company was an american based company(does that help american people more?)does the money stay and help our country?or the foreign based company does the money helps their country?

Originally Posted by prpmmp

Hi all!! The big question would be if the company was an american based company(does that help american people more?)does the money stay and help our country?or the foreign based company does the money helps their country?

The short answer is, yes.
There are lots of factors, and people will cherry pick the ones they want to make their point on either side of the argument............but an honest overall look will reveal that trade almost always benefits all involved if it's voluntary. When people find fault with trade the automatic reaction should be to figure out what is causing any genuine problems that arise..........sort of like trouble shooting a faulty operating condition in a vehicle. You can guess, or mislead yourself, which in the end may not fix the "problem", will probably cost more than necessary, take more time, and often ends up not accomplishing the repair.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

The short answer is, yes.
There are lots of factors, and people will cherry pick the ones they want to make their point on either side of the argument............but an honest overall look will reveal that trade almost always benefits all involved if it's voluntary. When people find fault with trade the automatic reaction should be to figure out what is causing any genuine problems that arise..........sort of like trouble shooting a faulty operating condition in a vehicle. You can guess, or mislead yourself, which in the end may not fix the "problem", will probably cost more than necessary, take more time, and often ends up not accomplishing the repair.

Thanks Bob!! Yes I try to buy from a american companys but you will find that some of their products are made offshore.(on barret jackson i saw a 1957 t-bird that was made in mexico city in 1957)I also shop local smaller business before the big chains,(the owners of wallmart are among the wealthiest in the world! I think they can afford to pay their employes a higher wage without raising prices!how much wealth is to much!)some would say you are never to rich but greed is plan wrong! I want americans to work so I try to do my little part even if it cost a little more. Pete

Pete, my memory may be wrong on this, but I think you're relatively new to this type of discussion here. Good that you throw your hat in the ring, don't want to discourage that.

I use certain words with purpose/intent just to see what comes out in discussion, and in the reply to you above, one of the key words was "voluntary" in reference to trade. If trade is done in a voluntary way, greed is pretty much impossible. I know, that's not how our national discussion frames the use of the word greed, but again, I talk about "honest ovall look". So, if I may, let me shape the discussion in a way that doesn't serve the political/elite class. Those evil, wealthy owners and share holders of Wal Mart, to my knowledge, don't run out into the street and put a gun to someones head and force them to shop at their stores. The owners/investors put their earnings on the line first, without guarantee that anyone will walk through the door and exchange value (most often money so far) for what they have. The take a risk, and if they offer sufficient value, people will voluntarily walk through the door and exchange value. Likewise for the employees (not just of WalMart, this is the same for any job). Walmart doesn't have the power to conscript anyone, in other words, force them to work for Walmart. Again, the owners/investors put their earnings on the line first to crate the business, build the store, stock it, equip it to make transactional trades, and then have to find people to serve the other people (customers). They offer the jobs at XX dollars per hour (or whatever wage calculating structure). If they were being unreasonable in their offering of a wage, nobody, or insufficient numbes of bodies, would apply. To my knowledge, good economy or bad, they've never had a shortage of applicants, so base on how long the line of applicants is, the free market place says they're offering a realistic wage for the skill level necessary. Again, I'll point out this is a general overview, while there may be some specific examples where this system doesn't work I would point out those are extreme exceptions, not the norm. So, to summarize, Walmart doesn't force customers to do business with them, and employees aren't forced to work for them. All three parties are trading what they have of value (condumer products, money or time/skill in this example) with each other on a voluntary basis, no extortion, not threats of jail time or fines, no forcing someone to do something against their will that will harm them. I fail to see where a realistic definition of greed could come from that.

On the other hand, just to be current, and again tweaking the mainstream view that may have alternate objectives, let's look at what real greed looks like. Let's say you have a young woman who is living a comparatively affluent life. She doesn't have to work, but she is working on a potentially high paying job through the educational path she's chosen for herself. She demands that someone else pay for he "wants" in life. I emphasize wants from needs as in, food is a necessity of life, sex, albeit enjoyable and good for the psyche, is not a life or death necessity for the participant. Yet here this young woman is, demanding that someone else pay for her protection from the outcomes of her decision to, apparently based on how much she claims it will cost, play....... a lot........ at no economic cost to her. Further, she's demanding that government make her fellow productive citizens pay for it. Since government is a service to the citizens, and as such doesn't produce anything that expands value (yes, they may assist the citizens to expand value, but only after those citizens create value first that can be taxed)they have to take away value from those who earn it, to transfer to those who haven't, such as this young woman. And if you don't want to do that as the original earner, you will be penalized by fine or jail........in other words, you're not in a voluntary transaction, you're forced to pay for her wants. I would suggest to you that she's the one exhibiting greed. She wants to get value from citizen A to suit her life choice without giving anything in return.....................well............she's giving something of value, but not likely to those who ultimately pay for it.

Is your middle name" Rush" ? and are you discussing the round heel??

Political Correct???

Last night I saw a program that was discussing the fact about how the most sognificant tech invention to date in the modern world was the I Phone----and that it had replaced the previously most important tech invention the radio and how Hitler and the Nazis used it to bring together their support for Hitler--

They didn't go into how present day xxxxxxxxxxx are using the I Phone to shape a new culture of followers----

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Pete, my memory may be wrong on this, but I think you're relatively new to this type of discussion here. Good that you throw your hat in the ring, don't want to discourage that.

I use certain words with purpose/intent just to see what comes out in discussion, and in the reply to you above, one of the key words was "voluntary" in reference to trade. If trade is done in a voluntary way, greed is pretty much impossible. I know, that's not how our national discussion frames the use of the word greed, but again, I talk about "honest ovall look". So, if I may, let me shape the discussion in a way that doesn't serve the political/elite class. Those evil, wealthy owners and share holders of Wal Mart, to my knowledge, don't run out into the street and put a gun to someones head and force them to shop at their stores. The owners/investors put their earnings on the line first, without guarantee that anyone will walk through the door and exchange value (most often money so far) for what they have. The take a risk, and if they offer sufficient value, people will voluntarily walk through the door and exchange value. Likewise for the employees (not just of WalMart, this is the same for any job). Walmart doesn't have the power to conscript anyone, in other words, force them to work for Walmart. Again, the owners/investors put their earnings on the line first to crate the business, build the store, stock it, equip it to make transactional trades, and then have to find people to serve the other people (customers). They offer the jobs at XX dollars per hour (or whatever wage calculating structure). If they were being unreasonable in their offering of a wage, nobody, or insufficient numbes of bodies, would apply. To my knowledge, good economy or bad, they've never had a shortage of applicants, so base on how long the line of applicants is, the free market place says they're offering a realistic wage for the skill level necessary. Again, I'll point out this is a general overview, while there may be some specific examples where this system doesn't work I would point out those are extreme exceptions, not the norm. So, to summarize, Walmart doesn't force customers to do business with them, and employees aren't forced to work for them. All three parties are trading what they have of value (condumer products, money or time/skill in this example) with each other on a voluntary basis, no extortion, not threats of jail time or fines, no forcing someone to do something against their will that will harm them. I fail to see where a realistic definition of greed could come from that.

On the other hand, just to be current, and again tweaking the mainstream view that may have alternate objectives, let's look at what real greed looks like. Let's say you have a young woman who is living a comparatively affluent life. She doesn't have to work, but she is working on a potentially high paying job through the educational path she's chosen for herself. She demands that someone else pay for he "wants" in life. I emphasize wants from needs as in, food is a necessity of life, sex, albeit enjoyable and good for the psyche, is not a life or death necessity for the participant. Yet here this young woman is, demanding that someone else pay for her protection from the outcomes of her decision to, apparently based on how much she claims it will cost, play....... a lot........ at no economic cost to her. Further, she's demanding that government make her fellow productive citizens pay for it. Since government is a service to the citizens, and as such doesn't produce anything that expands value (yes, they may assist the citizens to expand value, but only after those citizens create value first that can be taxed)they have to take away value from those who earn it, to transfer to those who haven't, such as this young woman. And if you don't want to do that as the original earner, you will be penalized by fine or jail........in other words, you're not in a voluntary transaction, you're forced to pay for her wants. I would suggest to you that she's the one exhibiting greed. She wants to get value from citizen A to suit her life choice without giving anything in return.....................well............she's giving something of value, but not likely to those who ultimately pay for it.

I I I think you insulted me but not sure!! I give up UNCLE,UNCLE,UNCLE(is that why they call you uncle Bob) Pete

Originally Posted by prpmmp

I I I think you insulted me but not sure!! I give up UNCLE,UNCLE,UNCLE(is that why they call you uncle Bob) Pete

Well, I hope I didn't insult you (only you can let that happen), i usually save that just for Alan. Just trying to play Don Quixote to the political/media elite mantra that, IMHO, try to obscure reality to serve their own purposes. I'm in favor of them serving us instead of making their lives cushy at our expense. It's a big battle.

Jerry, no, but he does call me for ideas. What her sexual activities are are her choice and business......................................until she demands that we tax payers be forced to protect her from the outcomes of her own decisions.............then SHE makes it my (and any other tax payers) business.

Would we be better off paying for her "protection" ? Or would we rather pay for her "offspring"?? In this country, right now, we are going to pay! One way or the other!!!

just pass her around to us old guys

Originally Posted by 34_40

Would we be better off paying for her "protection" ? Or would we rather pay for her "offspring"?? In this country, right now, we are going to pay! One way or the other!!!

I guess that's my point. We're being forced/shamed/extorted to pay to protect her when she gets screwed but who's going to protect us from the same thing if we don't do it ourself?

Jerry, let's see if the White House calls you out for that suggestion..............................no matter how good an idea it is.

I've been told that in other parts of the world(Europe) that couples wash condums and reuse them!!!!

Bob, my compliments, I always enjoy your comments even for the short period of time I have been on this forum. That said, your second treatise could, by most people who have been there and done that claim that it fits the description of a trophy wife and generally the guy who has a trophy wife really doesn't care what she demands or wants just as long as he gets what he wants in that he attains the status and pleasure on several fronts with such an arrangement and typically that was the original objective in the first place, that plus sex and visual pleasure.

Next point, I am not sure about you, but your comment: sex, albeit enjoyable and good for the psyche, is not a life or death necessity for the participant may fit your argument, but I got to tell you and just speaking for myself, it is an absolute necessity in my life, and again, arguably, without such release in some people ,has been know to cause unintended consequences that became life threatening if not corrected.

Relative to the comments on American Made and why companies go offshore, its simple economics, companies will go where the costs create an greater return on their investments and provide an opportunity to gain maximum share of the market they are engaged in. Sadly the American worker has gradually priced himself out of a job in that the companies can no longer afford to pay say $20.00 and hour and go where the monthly wage is $100 per month, again simple economics.

To the comments Made in America is not longer a product comprised of items solely made in America but consisted of parts and sub assemblies sourced elsewhere and are either assembled in the United States or imported as a complete product, is at the end of the day in my opinion not a bad practice, if outsourcing off shore provides an opportunity for an American company to generate more return for their stakeholders, provide an opportunity to expand their Stateside operations and in the process hire more "white collar workers".

Its not good however for the poor guy that lost his job to outsourcing and that's the dilemma.

Currently, China is the country of choice for outsourcing but this is slowly changing due to socio-economic conditions in this country in that the government is now mandating employees will get a guaranteed 20% increase in the basic wage over the next five years in an attempt at gaining some parity between the rich and the poor and is pouring billions of equivalent dollars into infrastructure development, particularly in the central and northern regions of China where the annual wage has hovered around US$100 per year since it was primarily an agro economy.

With these type of labor cost hikes taking place now and continuing for who knows how long, companies will either be forced to bail out of this country and go elsewhere or retrench back to the United Sates if sufficient incentives are provided by the government that makes it economically feasible for them to do so. Again, its all about economics.

I have been building and ramping up factories here in China for the past twenty plus years for US companies and get to see their balance sheets both before and after the transition and I can attest to the fact the savings get to be phenomenal. I believe Apple is a prime example, 99.0% outsourced products, unprecedented cash flow generation and for those lucky enough to have backed that horse, phenomenal returns on their investment. Pretty difficult to argue with their business model, it was spot on target and they are reaping their rewards.

Just my two cents guys.

Cheers John, AKA, tin-man

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

just pass her around to us old guys

Jerry, can you handle it?

I know, I know, Viagra helps at our age, but do you really want something that's been used that much? Cheers, John, AKA, tin-man